Causation in Wrongful Termination Cases - "Substantial Motivating Factor/Reason"

Matthew Clarke
Christman, Kelley & Clarke, PC

January 14, 2014:  Another trial court has run afoul of the proper legal standard for causation in wrongful termination cases.  In MENDOZA v. WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER SANTA ANA, the plaintiff/employee claimed his report of sexual harassment caused defendant/employer to fire him. He alleged that defendants retaliated against Mendoza for accusing his superior of sexual harassment.  Defendants, on the other hand, claimed that Mendoza willingly participated in sexual misconduct on the job as their motivation for firing Mendoza.

Defendants claimed Mendoza’s report only “caused” his firing by bringing his misconduct to his employer's attention.  Defendants concede it is against public policy to fire employees because they report actual sexual harassment.  The Defendant argued that it is not against public policy for employers to fire
employees after the employer determines in good faith that the employee actually participated in sexual misconduct on the job.

The main issue on appeal was the jury instruction on causation.  First, the instruction read: "That Romeo Mendoza’s report of sexual harassment by Del Erdmann was the motivating reason for Romeo Mendoza’s discharge.” (bold/underlining added.)

This instruction modified the 2012 version of CACI No. 2430 by substituting "the motivating reason” rather than “a motivating reason”).

The special verdict form submitted to the jury was even worse for the employee: “Was Romeo Mendoza’s report of sexual harassment by Del Erdman the reason for [defendants’] decision to discharge Romeo Mendoza.” (Italics added.)

This also changed the CACI verdict form from “a motivating reason” to “the motivating reason” or “the reason”.  The jury would be left with the idea that the plaintiff's burden could only be satisfied if there were only one reason motivating the decision to fire Mendoza.

The jury submitted a question on this very topic.  The trial court clarified:   "Pursuant to the Jury Instruction . . . , the plaintiff must prove that his 
report of Sexual Harassment was a motivating reason for his discharge."  This was based on the 2012 version of the CACI forms.

The language of CACI 2430, Effective on June 2013, provides: “That [wrongful conduct inserted] was a substantial motivating reason for [name of plaintiff]’s discharge.” The corresponding special verdict form also inserted updated language (“a substantial motivating reason”). (CACI No. VF-2406.) This is the language approved by the California Supreme Court in Harris v. City of 
Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203.

Read the opinion here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G047394.PDF

Christman, Kelley & Clarke settles sexual harassment lawsuit brought against well-known commercial cleaning franchisee

Five women were subjected to horrible "hands on" sexual harassment by the same supervisor over the course of many months.  Christman, Kelley & Clarke fought for these women for over a year of litigation in Santa Barbara Superior Court.  On the eve of trial, the company agreed to a structured settlement for these victims of sexual harassment, allowing them to move-on with their lives.

Christman, Kelley & Clarke Wins Reinstatement for County of Santa Barbara Employee

Christman, Kelley & Clarke attorney Matthew Clarke convinced the Santa Barbara County Civil Service Commission that the County of Santa Barbara wrongfully terminated a high level county employee.  After a full evidentiary hearing and less than one hour of deliberations, the Commissioners unanimously reinstated the firm's client with back pay.  The employee and was otherwise ordered to be made whole by the County.  CKC's motion for attorney fees in now pending.

Contact us here with questions or comments.

Christman, Kelley & Clarke Wins Sexual Harassment Trial Against a 7-Eleven franchisee

Some cases have to be tried.  Christman, Kelley & Clarke shareholder Matthew Clarke headed the trial team along with associate Matthew Mong against 7-Eleven franchisees in a eight day trial in Santa Maria, California. Christman, Kelley & Clarke prevailed in the trial obtaining money damages for the client.  More importantly, the client's rights were vindicate and a strong message sent to the 7-Eleven franchisee that sexual harassment in the workplace will not be tolerated.  The firm's motion for attorney fee is now pending before the court.

7-Eleven, the franchisor, settled before the trial started.

Christman, Kelley & Clarke - discussion about Texas employment law

With offices in Santa Barbara, California and Dallas, Texas, the firm can handle employment matters for both employers and employees in both states.

Click here to view video.

What you should do when faced with workplace harassment or discrimination

Christman, Kelley & Clarke recommends that an employee who is faced with harassment or discrimination do the following:

1. Tell the person to stop, both verbally and in writing.  It is always very important to have evidence of your communications with your employer.

2.  Review the company personnel policy manual if one exists. This will tell you how the company wants you to deal with complaints.  You should follow the procedure and any time limits set out in that policy. If your company has designated certain staff to receive sexual harassment complaints, that is where you should bring your complaint.

3.  If your company has no procedure, speak with your immediate supervisor about the harassment. If your supervisor has been harassing you, make your complaint to the supervisor's superior.

4.  Make sure that management knows of the harassment.

5.  Document your complaints. You should note the date and time, the name and title of the person to whom the complaint was made and the response.

6.  If the harassment or discrimination continues, you should seek the advice of competent employment lawyers such as Christman Kelley & Clarke.

Send us an email if you have any questions or concerns:  matt@christmankelley.com

The latest California case on constructive termination - forcing an employee to use his vehicle? Not so fast.

On December 13, 2013, the California Court of Appeal held that Jorge L. Vasquez did not state a valid legal claim for constructive termination in violation of public policy.  The employee claimed that the employer violated the Labor Code by assigning him tasks that required extensive use of his vehicle and refusing to reimburse him for mileage.  That was not enough to support his claim for wrongful termination.  Not surprisingly, the Court also held that the employee failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court threw the employee a bone by finding that the trial court should have allowed the employee one additional chance to amend the complaint.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B245735.PDF